Method for conducting championship playoff

ABSTRACT

A method for conducting a postseason championship playoff series of sporting events includes the initial step of determining the total number of teams to participate in the postseason series by multiplying the total number of teams in the league by a minority influence value of 0.37. A postseason tournament is then conducted with the first round of events comprised of games of the postseason teams based upon rankings at the end of the regular season. The winners of the first round are then re-seeded and additional rounds of events are conducted until a champion is determined.

CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 10/857,793, filed May 28, 2004, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 10/282,640, filed Oct. 28, 2002, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 09/847,613, filed May 2, 2001, which is based upon Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/206,741, filed May 24, 2000; and includes material and information which is based upon Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/610100, filed Sep. 15, 2004, and Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/634338, filed Dec. 8, 2004.

STATEMENT AS TO RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS MADE UNDER FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(Not applicable)

INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC

(Not applicable)

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

(1) Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to methods for conducting a series of sporting events, and more particularly to an improved method for conducting a championship tournament of a 32-team league.

(2) Description of Related Art Including Information Disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98

The entire disclosure of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/206,741 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. That disclosure, entitled “Sports Improvements Systems”, includes a variety of information relating to majority and minority influences as they relate to sports events, configuration for ranking teams in a sport, funds distribution within each organization of a sports league, sports ranking procedures, enhancements to college baseball, improvements to each of a variety of specific sports, improvements generally to basketball, revenue sharing in sports, and general sports improvements, including the methods of the invention detailed in this patent application. Furthermore, the entire disclosure of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/610,100, entitled “3-Cube Slots”, and the entire disclosure of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/634,338, entitled “Vacuator”, is incorporated herein by reference thereto.

The current system for determining a national champion in NCAA Division I college football is based solely on two polls, a coaches' poll and a writers' poll. These polls, while useful for general rankings of teams, have proven to be inconsistent and controversial in attempting to select a national champion. In fact, Division IA football is the only sport in any of the 80 divisions of the NCAA that does not have a championship tournament.

While critics of the current bowl system for post-season play have provided numerous reasons for change to a playoff system, some of the major factors include the following. First, because the top two ranked teams do not necessarily compete with one another in a bowl game, there are frequent disputes as to the true national champion for two teams with identical wins/loss record. The importance of a particular bowl game can vary greatly depending upon the two teams which are chosen to play in the game, aw well as the particular day on which the game is played. For the same reason, attendance at many bowl games has decreased. Finally, smaller schools and conferences may not be fairly represented in the current post-season playoff structure.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is therefore a general object of the present invention to provide an improved method for conducting a championship playoff series of sporting events to determine an overall champion.

Another object is to provide a championship playoff method that recognizes that the two best teams may be within the same conference or division, and provides a method for enabling those teams to play against one another in the final championship game.

These and other objects will be apparent to those skilled in the art.

The method for conducting a postseason championship playoff series of sporting events of the present invention includes the initial step of determining the total number of teams to participate in the postseason series by multiplying the total number of teams in the league by a minority influence value of 0.37. A postseason tournament is then conducted with the first round of events comprised of games of the postseason teams based upon rankings at the end of the regular season. The winners of the first round are then re-seeded and additional rounds of events are conducted until a champion is determined.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING

FIGS. 1 and 2 show external and internal views of the Vacuator; while FIGS. 3, 4, 5, and 6 show 3-dimensional representations and views of 3-Cube Slots.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The rules enforcement method of the present invention relates to two distinct areas of various sporting activities. First, activities by athletes both on and off the field were deemed to be unacceptable behaviors. The second part of rules enforcement relates to the determination of rules violations by referees during a sporting event.

As noted above, a successful relationship between athletes and an organization's administrators requires a sense of loyalty between athletes themselves and between the athletes and the administrators. The preferred stance of the organization should be to support an athlete in the event of a detrimental act by an athlete, but making it clear that a repetition of the act would lead to a much different attitude of the organization. As a part of this method for deterring detrimental activities, each sports organization should provide a written code or policy, available to all members of the organization, which clearly explains activities that are considered detrimental along with the reasons why those activities are detrimental. Further, the punishments for the offenses should be applied to each and every individual within an organization equally, regardless of that individual's particular position, influence, or tenure with the organization.

Every particular violation should have a resulting ramification. The following format is based upon the principle of doubling the penalties for each subsequent occurrence of the same violation or offense. Preferably, this doubling does not begin to occur until after the second offense, at which time a severe sanction should be imposed and then repeatedly doubled for each repeated violation. No. of Same or Similar Violations Sanctions 1^(st) Offense Reprimand and/or minimum suspension from the sport. Set up communication therapies, schedules and priorities to maximize successful reform. 2^(nd) Offense Suspension from sport for 1 calendar year. 3^(rd) Offense Suspension from sport for 2 calendar years. 4^(th) Offense Suspension from sport for 4 calendar years. 5^(th) Offense Suspension from sport for 8 calendar years.

Although a rash of separate violations would incur separate ramifications, these guidelines are also applicable to a variety of unacceptable behaviors in a wide variety of degrees of punishment. A second example, which relates more closely to sports such as basketball and baseball. In particular, violation of physical contact, such as throwing and/or actually landing a punch. No. of Same or Similar Violations Sanctions 1^(st) Offense Reprimand and/or minimum suspension from the sport. Set up communication therapies, schedules and priorities to maximize successful reform. 2^(nd) Offense Suspension from sport for 10 games. 3^(rd) Offense Suspension from sport for 20 games. 4^(th) Offense Suspension from sport for 40 games. 5^(th) Offense Suspension from sport for 80 games.

In the sport of baseball, batters are sometimes hit by a wild pitch from the pitcher. However, if the throw is deemed to be intentional, as called by two or more separate umpires, then this act should be considered similar in sanction as the throwing of a punch.

The second area of rule enforcement relates to enforcement of rules by officials on a playing field during a sporting event. All potential infractions in a particular sporting event are initially regulated and enforced by a set of referees. These infractions are set forth in a written rule book for the particular sport.

Of the total infractions being policed by the referees, a predetermined list is subject to a second category of rules enforcement known as the “instant replay” rule. The instant replay rule is a check and balance of the referees, which is available to the coaches of the teams involved in the sporting event. Currently, this rule is used in the sport of professional football, and may be used only a predetermined number of times by each team as a “check” on the call of the referees (termed “reviewable calls”). If a coach does not have the means by which to initiate an instant replay review, then the referee's call will stand as indisputable.

The inventor herein proposes adding a third category of “checks and balances”, to correct the ever present element of human error during sporting events. This third category is termed the “Caesar's overrule”. As noted above, a panel of at least one person may be utilized to implement the instant replay rule in a sporting event. However, the instant replay rule is only utilized on “reviewable” calls. The “Caesar” position would be a position for only one person. Further, neither team could seek an over ruling by the “Caesar”. Rather, an overrule by Caesar is initiated solely by the person in this position.

The Caesar has the power to make two types of calls. First, the Caesar may call an infraction that was missed by the referees. Second, the Caesar may overrule an infraction initially called by the referees, so long as the called infraction was not a “reviewable” call. There would be no limit to the number of Caesar overrules in a particular sporting contest, unlike the instant replay category. The Caesar official would be at the game, although not on the field, and would have the power to make calls and overrules during the playing of the game.

The following work illustrates design arrangements and relationships where 32 (usually domestic, professional teams) is the preferred number of clubs within any sporting industry. Where teams must be ranked based on performance (typically by won/loss record solely in professional sports), those sporting industries consisting of any number of franchises other than 32 should find it imperative and most beneficial to strive to eventually attain this special integer.

Before we begin discussing favored scenarios, let's figure the proper number of 32 total teams that should take part in a postseason. Emphasizing the importance of majority and minority influences utilizing the 63/37 ratio, logic dictates that a minority influence of teams should represent any postseason. To find this minority influence, we simply multiply the number of teams (32) times 37%: 32×0.37=12!

Twelve teams should be narrowed to one champion whereby 4 of the 12 teams to make it to the postseason receive a first round bye in a four round format. After round 1 where teams ranked #5-#12 play, three additional rounds are required to narrow the remaining (8) teams to a single champion.

The following table shows a possible geographic placement of the current 32 NFL teams, using four Divisions with 8 teams in each Division: NorthEast SouthEast MidNorth SouthWest New York Jets Atlanta Chicago Seattle New York Giants Miami Detroit San Francisco New England Tennessee Green Bay Oakland Cleveland Tampa Bay Minnesota San Diego Cincinnati Jacksonville Denver Arizona Philadelphia Carolina Kansas City New Orleans Pittsburgh Washington St. Louis Dallas Buffalo Baltimore Indianapolis Houston

Because an individual organization should theoretically play all of the teams within their own division at least once; we must start by determining how many teams should be played out of the division, then how many teams should be played out-of-conference—whereby two conferences consist each of two divisions in the 4D×8T (4 Divisions with 8 Teams each) configuration.

Playing teams out-of-division and out-of-conference are both a minority influence. Teams out-of-division: 32−8=24 and applying the minority influence percentage leads to: 0.37×24=9 teams. For the NFL, of a block of 16 regular season games, nine teams should be played out of the division. Number of different divisions=3. Nine teams to be played out of the division, divided by 3 different divisions, means 3 out of the 8 teams in each other division should be played.

Teams out-of-conference=32−16=16 and applying the majority and minority influence percentages leads to: 0.63×16=10 teams, and 0.37×16=6 teams. Thus, ten teams should be played within your own conference (7 within your division+3 in the other division); and six teams should be played out of your conference (3 in one division+3 in another division).

In the following illustration, the principal team of a particular sport always resides in Division A. The above explanation, per accepted numbers of regular season games per sport, equates to: Reg. Season 16 162 82 Prof. Sport Basketball/ Divisions Football Baseball Hockey Games A 7 [each team 70 [each 10 35 [each 5 to be once] times] times] played B 3 [3/8 teams] 32 [each 4 16 [each per Division times] twice] C 3 30 16 D 3 30 15

As you can see, baseball's numbers are approximately 10 times greater than football's, and basketball and hockey approximately 5 times greater.

However, so as to accommodate more games in postseason rounds due to the necessity to play a series of games, a preferred number of games to be played by these sports would be exactly either ten times or five times that of football:

The post-season configuration for the 4D×8T format includes the following rules:

-   -   1. Each regular season division champion receives one of the         four first round byes.     -   2. Aside from the 4 teams to receive a bye, the remaining teams         throughout the league as a whole are ranked and seeded properly         #1 through #8 to play in the first round.     -   3. After the first round concludes, there are then 8 remaining         teams in the postseason. These remaining 8 teams are then         re-SEEDED #1 through #8 by the accepted methods of ranking to         determine second round match-ups!     -   4. Round 3 is the final four.

5. Round 4 is the championship game. Reg. Season 160 80 Prof. Sport Divisions Baseball Bball/Hockey Games A 70 [each 10 times] 35 [each 5 times] To be B 30 15 Played C 30 15 Per Division D 30 15

The four divisions each with 8 teams preferably should be split along geographical lines. This creates a scenario where the different division winners each represent a different part of the country, thereby keeping the nation as a whole interested in the postseason. Because every division will compete in part with every other division, any scheduling concerns are easily accommodated. Reseeding after the first round remedies a menacing phenomenon where the two best teams reside either in the same division or same conference.

The best part of this arrangement is that it does provide the best two teams in the league, as a whole, the potential to meet in the sport's championship game, regardless of which division they occupy. If the best two teams in the league are, at the extreme, in the same division—then if the team not winning the division wins a first round game (or series), these two top-rated teams could meet in the championship game.

The following is the preferred sequence of regular season play (continuing to use the NFL as an example). Although it is seven out of seven teams in each division to be played each year, each team will actually play the same 8 teams every year. Each team will play a “traditional” rival that resides outside of their own division each year, such as Dallas-Washington or Raiders-Steelers. The preferred sequence is as follows: (a) First: 8 Out-of-Division games; (b) Next: 7 Division games; and (c) Last: 1 Traditional rival.

With the 4D×8T configuration, minimum automatic bids would need to be determined by each separate sports league. Although (1) automatic entry into the postseason per each division [that being the division champion] is a given, (2) automatic entries could be accommodated.

This system is beneficial because it provides for both local and traditional rivalries during the regular season and for the postseason. The inadequacies of any postseason format other than the principles described above will have fans, coaches, and administrators clamoring for this configuration—a win-win situation, where . . . 32 really is the magic number!

Most sporting industries will not last in their present environments. There needs to be an evolution, but not of gigantic proportions. Rather, simple principles need to be adjusted—simple principles with gigantically positive ramifications.

Such as the lure of latte, there has always been coffee and milk—but making the milk hot is a simple step with magical effects. Coffee and cream was blah. The same ingredients in a latte however, prepared slightly differently, are a world apart in their appeal, satisfaction, and demand. The magic was simply heating the milk! Many of the following proposed sports improvements will, after only fundamental adjustments, be similar to latte in their proportions of cause and effect—minor modifications . . . enormous dividends. Each of the following improvement will be set forth in a separate section, for ease of consideration.

Section I: General Football

A. Overtimes in Postseason

An overtime will be treated as an extension of the game where normal rules apply. Coin toss wins preference to kick-off or receive. First team to score wins, however, a winning team must have kicked-off or punted to the opposing team at least once. This provision provides an opportunity for a subsequent tie if the first receiving team (B) scores without punting, then the opposing team (A) scores an equal amount without punting after its first kick-off reception. In this event, without stipulation, the next team to score wins. In the event that team A and team B score unequal amounts after each receiving one kick-off, the team scoring the most points, of course, would win the game. Two-point conversions would remain pertinent and controversial game-ending possibilities. There shall be no time limit in this extra period. An on-side kick would be considered a kick-off.

The advantage to kick-off first in an overtime may be demonstrated as follows: Team A kicks-off to team B. Team B scores immediately. Team A must receive a kick-off and score at least as much on that possession and, therefore, could utilize 4^(th) down as an offensive play instead of a punt. Also, because team B scores first, team A would know the points needed to tie or surpass team B.

The advantage to receive first in overtime may be demonstrated as follows: Team B receives first kick-off and scores immediately. Team A then scores an equal amount after receiving its first kick-off. At this point, the next team to score is the winner. The next possession and chance to win the game with no further stipulations belongs first to team B.

As far as comparing the current overtimes format with the above, that is a difficult task chiefly due to the fact that the current overtimes are not football! The essence of the great game of football is field position, special teams play, and time management; not red-zone offense vs. goal-line defense.

As a note, overtimes in the regular season are completely unnecessary. The rare and somewhat satisfying battle between two teams refusing to lose would be and have been some of the very best of that year

Penalty Adjustment: Pass interference—“Upon the call of pass interference, the ball shall be moved to the spot of the foul, not greater than 15 yards and no less than 5 yards, and that down shall be repeated.” This call shall no longer warrant an automatic first down. At present, this penalty virtually equals that which is supposed to be the most serious infractions . . . unsportsmanlike conduct. On 3^(rd) and extremely long, some coaches will often throw quick passes of 1-5 yards with the intent of increasing the probabilities for a pass interference call. If called here, a dominant defensive effort is immediately erased by a usually subjective quick-hitch play. In the case of blatant unsportsmanlike acts (as determined by the referee) whereby defensive backs pull down potential offensive receivers to thwart a chance of a big play, this would then be deemed a SPOT foul—the ball is spotted at the point of infraction without a 15-yard maximum.

Rules Clarification: A kick shall be defined as a punt, an attempt at a field goal, a kick-off [preferably where no touchbacks are allowed when the ball is in the field of play, including the endzone], or any other scenario where the ball is purposely kicked. “Barring any turnovers if and after team B touches the ball, as long as a player on Team A purposely touches the ball with his foot to perform a kick, then there is a change of possession.” There is no reason why a kick-off team should receive any more than one attempt at an on-side kick; nor is there a reason why a field goal unit should be rewarded with another attempt in some circumstances when their opponents block a previous attempt. Simply put, unless a penalty is incurred, kicking teams get only one chance to actually kick the ball—and no more than one.

Rules Change: The following controversial topic should be explored in depth to test theoretical validity, or lack thereof; and if utilized, should be implemented only after years of communication and practice. “The ground may cause a fumble.” A player must prove that he can hold and control the ball continuously against any ferocious confrontations from his dynamic opponents, yet is not required and does not worry to control the ball against a static field.

Kickers: This area of the great game of football needs to be addressed. Kickers are now much too specialized . . . too wimpy. Football is not wimpy—why allow specialized positions to contrast the inherent attitudes of toughness and diversity?

A single designated player per each team will now be responsible for ALL foot-to-ball actions, such as any forms of kick-offs, punts, field goals or drop kicks, or any other similar kicking function. Once a designated kickers exits a game (cannot or does not perform one of the above kicking responsibilities) due to poor performance or injury or otherwise, that player may not return again for that particular game as the designated kicker. A new designated kicker will then be named, with no limits as to the number of designated kickers per team per game.

B. College Football:

As a prelude to the Secondary Championship game, the SNOW BOWL (otherwise known as the Consolation Bowl) shall be played Christmas Eve day. The teams of final rank #29 and #30 would be invited to this event, which would rotate each year to a new potentially snow-bound outdoor stadium. Ticket prices for this game should be exceptionally low, and arenas would arm themselves as fan friendly against colder weather. This scenario incorporates something new and different . . . an environment of fun, especially for the fans—and a more suitable number (in our base 10 society) for teams of final rank to qualify for the postseason: Top 30[12+16+2]! To further breakdown the 63/37 ratio, 63=37+26. Although the number of Division I teams to make it to a postseason should most appropriately equal 37%, 26% shall suffice until that time. 30 teams divided by 115 total=26%.

In regard to the Top 12 Championship tournament bracket, on a rotating basis, each of four sites will host a different round within a 4-year period where each particular site would host either the final four or the championship game every other year. [For example, the Fiesta Bowl could host round 3 in 2001, round 1 in 2002, round 4 in 2003, and host round 2 in 2004, etc.]

Instant replay is a must! It's this simple: If the fans can see (on “jumbotrons” or home television sets) that a particular call was blatantly wrong; if the coaches can see this; if the players can see this; or if the administrators or any other person of significance can see this, then how is it that some of the most important decision makers on the field (or court, etc.) . . . namely the referees . . . are not allowed to see it. It is not a difficult task to incorporate instant replay into today's football in such a manner whereby the game's flow is not interrupted.

If a predetermined impartial observer deems it necessary to review a call/play which is pertinent to a game (as opposed to an irrelevant off-sides penalty), then the play may be reviewed for a maximum of 90 seconds, if there are no technical difficulties. If a decision to switch the call in question cannot be made in the above time, then the play stands as it was originally called on the field. If there are technical difficulties, then a referee's timeout is accessed and a decision must be made by the end of this timeout. Any equipment sabotage is cause for game disqualification; and there are no ramifications per participating teams if the impartial observer initiates this process, regardless of the outcome.

Each coach may call a maximum of two disputes per half with a maximum of three per game, which shall include any necessary overtimes in postseason. During a dispute, the play clock (and time clock if appropriate) will be temporarily suspended until there is a final decision, upon whence the clock(s) may need to be adjusted. A head coach will need a timeout available in order to declare a dispute, which shall be signaled by the head coach throwing a specific red flag onto the field in a timely manner. It is not possible for a head coach to dispute a call that has already been reversed; and if a dispute is upheld as originally called, then that head coach loses one timeout. There are no team ramifications if a disputed call is reversed.

College football Thursday night games should be one of the best match-ups of that particular week. Monday will no longer be the only popular weeknight for football.

Rules change: Players shall no longer be considered down (and subsequent dead play) if their knee or body touches the ground without the opponent having touched the offensive player. Field conditions, inclement weather, or the occasional stumble should not stop a player from a potentially exciting play—his adversary should!

To instill local team pride and loyalty, campus courts and fields should periodically be accessible to high school athletics. Football, for instance, could easily accommodate high school varsity games during weeks where home teams either have a bye or are playing away.

After first downs, the game clock shall continue to run unless circumstances dictate that it should stop (such as a timeout, a player runs out-of-bounds, etc.). However, for the last two minutes of each half, the game clock will be stopped until down markers can be reset.

Section II: Tennis

If a set in a match is the final set in that match and that set is tied at 6 games apiece, then one of the following tiebreaker procedures should be utilized: In the first alternative, the first player to serve in a tiebreaker will get one serve; then each player will begin, in turn, to rotate with two serves, then two return of serves, and so on. The first player to 9 points wins the match, as long as that person is also winning by 3 points!

An alternative to the above possibly drawn-out rules variation, is the following: The first person to 11 points wins the match. Or, and not inclusive, the first person to be leading in a tiebreaker by 4 points is the winner of the match, regardless of the score in the tiebreaker. Remember, 37% of 11=4.

Section III: Soccer

Overtimes (in postseason) will be divided into six separate segments of 10 minutes each. The team to first score a goal within the first four segments is the winner. There are different rule adaptations in each separate segment. Segment five determines a winner by the total number of team goals in a specified number of trials (where the ball, kicker, and goalie are all mobile). And, if necessary, segment six is used as the last resort where, as usual, there are five penalty-type kicks where the ball remains stationery; then if still tied, one kick per team until there is a difference in score. Also, each different rules adaptation from the separate segments is retained such that, for example, while playing in segment four, the rules of both segment 2 and segment 3 also apply.

1^(st) segment: Regular rules apply with no adaptations.

2^(nd) segment: A significantly larger goal is used.

3^(rd) segment: The base number of players shall be significantly reduced. Any appropriate players that were to miss this segment of overtime still do not play and that particular team simply has one or more less players at the new lower base.

4^(th) segment: Reduce significantly the dimensions of the playing field.

5^(th) segment: Dribble and shoot penalty kicks.

6^(th) segment: Regular penalty kicks.

There should be three periods per each regulation game, with intermissions between periods. For females, 3 periods each of 25 minutes equals 75 minutes per game. For males, 3 periods of 30 minutes each equates to a 90-minute game.

A player obtaining a yellow card is now out for the remainder of the period, with a minimum of ten minutes. The first three segments of the above overtimes arrangement shall constitute the equivalent of a period. A player obtaining a red card shall miss the remainder of regulation time, with a minimum of 30 minutes.

Off-sides of the offense can no longer be induced by any actions of the defense.

Section IV: Hockey

Hockey, like most other professional sports, should utilize the ideas outlined in the section ‘32 Team Configurations’ within this proposal. Currently, greater than 57% of the teams in the NHL make it to the postseason.

Like soccer, overtimes(in postseason) should be addressed. We will utilize similar principles discussed previously for the sport of soccer, but with slight modifications within the different segments of an overtime:

1^(st) segment: Regular rules apply with no adaptations, except that goalies will not be allowed out of the net to play the puck for the entire overtime period.

2^(nd) segment: A larger goal is used.

3^(rd) segment: The base number of players shall be reduced from 6 total players per team including the goalie(where there are no penalties incurred) on the ice at one time, to 5 total players per team including the goalie.

4^(th) segment: Move both goals in closer towards center ice.

5^(th) segment: Skate and shoot penalty shots.

6^(th) segment: Stationery penalty shots.

Section V: Basketball

Basketball should also utilize the ideas within the section above describing 32 Team Configurations. Also, like hockey, greater than 50% of the total teams in the NBA make it to the postseason—which is a travesty. See also Section X, below for additional information regarding this sport.

Section VI: Baseball

As well as other sports such as basketball and hockey, baseball should utilize the principles of the ‘32 Team Configurations’ section within this proposal, however there remains the need to further explain that there shall be a series of games for each match-up per round of postseason play for these sports.

The below (best-of number of games per round for professional baseball) PLAYOFF configuration emphasizes the importance of winning a division title. The higher ranked teams in each round would of course hold any home field advantages such as hosting the first and last games in a series to go the distance: Rounds 1 2 3 4 Best-of # 3 5 7 7 of games

However, the following playoff configuration, especially when only playing 160 regular season games, would more appropriately assure that the better teams would advance to the next rounds: Rounds 1 2 3 4 Best-of # 5 7 7 7 of games

This configuration further emphasizes the importance of winning a division title. The higher ranked teams in each round would of course hold any home field advantages such as hosting the first and last games in a series to go the distance.

Place a substantial limit on the size of gloves, with exceptions only for pitchers and catchers (for example, 8-9 inches long). Although this may slightly increase overall batting percentages, it will not come close to devastating the game statistically; but it will eradicate some of the monotony of play where it has become almost impossible to miss most balls, especially in the air. Now we can find out who the truly talented fielders are!

Make it both possible and accepted for pitchers and batters to wear face and neck, as well as head, protection. A transparent mask similar to a hockey goalie mask would be a good example.

Shorten the time to the bare minimum that teams take between batting, to taking the field for live play. It is important to utilize reasonable measures to increase the flow of the game.

We must exaggerate reasoning here to conclude an end result. If half of the baseball teams in the Major Leagues do not require their pitchers to bat, then why not have the other half of the teams not require their catchers to bat. Of course, this is ridiculous; but not having a player (whom is participating in a game) bat is also ridiculous—the last we heard, baseball consisted chiefly of three things: pitching, catching, and . . . hitting! Do away with the Designated-hitter rule. Baseball should have one and only one uniform set of rules for all teams.

We should also mention that any appropriate outlined principles within this proposal (such as Pay Per Performance with it's Revenue Allocation and Revenue Sharing properties) should be applied to any applicable sporting industries (such as football, baseball, hockey, basketball, etc.).

Section VII: General Sports Improvements

A. Policies to Deter Detrimental Activities

Regarding either student-athletes or professional athletes, there needs to be a sense of loyalty between themselves and an organization's administrators for any true level of success to be attained. Of course, successful relationships require discipline and need to reflect a continued effort from all appropriate parties.

If a member of an organization (such as an athlete) commits an act determined to be a detriment (such as illegal drug violations) to either the organization as a whole or the individual, or to others; then a preferred stance would be: ‘Everyone makes mistakes and we will support you through this unique and trying time, but understand . . . don't make the same mistake twice.’

Before going any further listing offenses and their corresponding preferred punishments, we must state that there should be a written code, made available to all members of an organization, clearly explaining what actions are considered to be a detriment and why—also, these policies should apply to all persons within an organization equally, regardless of their position and influence. In the following table, similar offenses committed by the same individual would, in most circumstances, be considered repeat offenses. Number of same or similar detrimental actions Policy 1^(st) offense Minimum reprimand and minimum suspension Set-up communication therapies, schedules and priorities to maximize successful reform 2^(nd) offense Suspended from sport for (1) calendar year 3^(rd) offense Suspended from sport for (2) calendar years 4^(th) offense Suspended from sport for (4) calendar years 5^(th) offense Suspended from sport for (8) calendar years

As in a postseason where there are only two outcomes for a team: win or lose; there are also primarily two paths an individual may take in their struggle towards reform: positive or negative. The above format is based on the principle of 2^(R), available outcomes to the power of ramification(s), beginning with the 2^(nd) offense as a reference. Of course, more serious offenses would incur more serious consequences.

Although a rash of separate violations would incur ramifications, these guidelines are also applicable to other incidents (unacceptable behaviors) and to other degrees.

Example relating especially to the NBA and MLB: Throwing and/or landing punches (A player can talk the talk, but certainly no punches!). 2^(nd) offense Suspended from sport for (20) games 3^(rd) offense Suspended from sport for (10) games 4^(th) offense Suspended from sport for (40) games 5^(th) offense Suspended from sport for (80) games etc. etc.

Furthermore, a pitcher deliberately throwing at a batter may be deemed intentional if called by two or more separate umpires. If so, this act could be considered similar (in ramifications) as throwing a punch.

B. Rules Enforcement Triangle:

Somewhat similar to our triangular American governing system of checks and balances, sports will now be enforced also with a system of checks and balances, to correct the ever-present element of human error—so that, within each contest, fairness in competition is always a top priority: (1) On-the-field REFEREES; (2) INSTANT REPLAY PANEL; (3) CAESAR'S OVERRULE.

When appropriate, head coaches will seek to overturn a referees call. The impartial panel may reverse calls upon reviewing instant replay.

The Caesar position is for only one person. Any employment in these positions would remain secure from game to game and season-to-season until the first big mistake is committed, which would be the last. Caesar's Overrule, initiated solely by the person in this position, may nullify an immediately previous referee's call, in the name of fairness, momentum, severity, etc.

As an example why the Caesars Overrule is needed, in the January 2001 Fiesta Bowl, an aggressive and successive Oregon State defense had Notre Dame 3^(rd) and 31 on ND's own ONE yard line—then an extremely questionable call at the 10 yard line (where there actually was no contact and no infraction) was whistled against Oregon State. It was a disgustingly poor call, and everyone in the stadium knew it, but there was no method to change it (college football was not utilizing instant replay at the time, but even so, OSU would not have been able to protest this type of call; and the refs were the ones to make the call—far too rarely do they reverse or nullify their own calls).

So what were the ramifications? Instead of OSU getting the ball in great field position just before halftime for a possible touchdown or at least field goal, Notre Dame received a first down and eventually marched toward their own field goal. This seemingly insignificant mistake by the referees was actually large—a huge momentum swing, and as far as OSU was concerned, it accounted for a differential of 6-10 points in ND's favor (took away 3-7 OSU possible points and added 3 points for ND where otherwise they would not have been possible to attain).

For clarity as to the rules enforcement triangle, it is structured as such:

-   -   1. All potential infractions are located at the apex of the         angular configuration—these infractions are initially regulated         and enforced on the field by a set of referees. Infractions         (whether called correctly, incorrectly, or missed by the         referees) would essentially equal the written and available rule         book for a particular sport. Next, all of these listed potential         infractions are split into two separate categories [the other         parts of the triangular enforcements arrangement below].

2. Instant Replay shall consist of a panel of persons )per sport and per league, a decision is ratified either unanimously or by a majority). A predetermined list of only a portion of the total of infractions to be initially policed by the referees is made available so that coaches are able to initiate this particular check and balance of the referees. If a coach does not have available the means (determined per sport, such as an available time-out in the sport of football) by which to initiate an instant replay review of a potential infraction which may be reviewed by the instant replay committee, then a referee's call will stand as indisputable.

3. Caesar's Overrule: any infraction not included in the list of instant replay calls which may be reviewed, but in the list of total calls, is a part of this third and last section. The individual as Caesar may call an infraction missed by the referees, or may overrule an infraction initially called by the referees, as long as the infractions the Caesar individual addresses is NOT an infraction which may be reviewed by instant replay. Of course, only Caesar may initiate this part of the check and balance process for ensuring ultimate fairness and making sure the referee's mistakes have an avenue for change. Also, there is no limit to the number of Caesar Overrules in a sporting contest, unlike instant replay reviews.

C. Understanding Strategies of the Game:

Per sporting event, fans should have access to explanations of that sport's particular strategies and circumstances. Preferably, there would be a team of statisticians and knowledgeable consultants providing current information to unknowledgeable fans during sporting contests/games via several mediums: large screens, video displays, radio, or individual remote sets.

Other than a bore for us sports fanatics, what does this accomplish?

This is a very important issue because it's implementation will pay big dividends . . . and become a big hit with fans! The more one understands about the game in progress, the more interesting it is. Not only can this make wives, the elderly, or even children more knowledgeable fans; but more importantly—it brings them to the game, ready to enjoy the action because they are no longer intimidated by a possibly foreign environment.

Some of the functions of this marketing tool: (1) Display stats as the game progresses, so that fans may understand how certain key (or seemingly insignificant) phases of a sport influence outcomes of distinct contests; (2) Explain little known areas of sports such as time management; and (3) Give opinions of strategies and subtle nuances from both opposing coaches' perspectives.

Again, this educates the casual fan, which promotes a more enjoyable product as well as repeat business, and broadens the base of patrons.

D. Injury Insurance:

It is not entirely damaging for a small percentage of college athletes to leave school early to perform in professional sports—this increases competition among schools. However, there are real concerns about student-athletes leaving school early, or not attending at all, due to professional farm systems and minor leagues (such as the restructuring of the CBA to becoming more closely related to the NBA). From an overall perspective, the practice of luring better athletes to professional minor leagues and away from colleges is not a healthy practice—not only for the universities and academic environments, but also for the professional leagues. When a significant portion of the best young athletes forsake a full scholarship in college for the security of the almighty dollar, they do not develop fundamental skills in their sport (as well as maturing personally), and the top tiers of that sport inevitably suffer the consequences in the long run. One answer is to provide insurance for the best student-athletes.

One of the biggest reasons student-athletes cite for leaving school early is the possibility of injury. ‘Now’, they say, ‘I can get some money—maybe not top draw, but it's the sure thing. If I stay in school and become severely injured, I could lose millions (and a later lifestyle) because I gave it the old college try’. This is a valid concern . . . and one the NCAA needs to take responsibility for by providing Injury Insurance to the top individuals of the major college sports. In worst case scenarios, the insurance would provide an injured student-athlete at least with remuneration matching professional league minimum salaries of the sport in question; and college players could be rated by a similar method to that described in the section ‘PPP’ of this proposal, thereby establishing standards regarding both amount, and guaranteed-years, of insurance coverage for the different levels of talent.

E. Stipend:

A percentage of the money generated by a playoff could be utilized in many ways. One area that needs to be investigated and addressed is an issue regarding some sort of stipend above tuition scholarships for student-athletes. With so much time devoted to academic and athletic responsibilities, student-athletes consequently are not able to earn much spending money. If necessary, most cannot even afford a plane ticket home for the holidays. A stipend is easily justified because the student-athletes are ultimately responsible for bringing in a great amount of money to the university. Call it ironic or hypocritical or even ridiculous, but there is no reason why the same student-athletes which help to bring in the big bucks are then penalized and tormented because they allowed someone to buy them lunch, or accepted to borrow someone's car. A logical start would be to allocate a small percentage of total revenues per year into an account/fund. After a few years, the interest alone could aid those most in need. By setting up this account properly where more funds come in than the interest is initially disbursed, this source would grow and be able to positively affect more student-athletes as time passes. And although further issues and sources of revenues regarding this issue need to be addressed, the above described may eventually provide some student-athletes with reasonable and necessary spending monies.

So, the student-athletes are now satisfied, but what about one other very important piece of the academic puzzle . . . the professors. From the stipend pool or more appropriately per individual universities, there will now be minimum salaries for a school's professors as compared to the same school's athletic salaries—an example is that the highest salary of any coach within the athletic department (most likely the head football coach) must be matched and paid to at least one professor.

F. Playing Surfaces:

Regardless of the level, athletics today is big business. There is no rational reason why the players(product) of such lucrative industries should perform on any stage except the best. Do not have athletes of such sports such as soccer, football, or baseball play on concrete—otherwise known as artificial turf. For these sports, the only surface allowed should be grass or an acceptable substitute that simulates grass.

G. Concussions:

No individual player may reenter a game where that player was removed from the contest due to concussion-related incidents, even if removed under his/her own power. It is not heroic for a player to reenter a game while concussion symptoms still remain (it usually takes at least 24 hours to several days for conditions to completely clear); in fact, it's just plain foolish for any player to do anything other than rest after a concussion. Referees would confer with arena (on-field) doctors regarding any uncertainties surrounding this issue.

H. Referees:

For all levels of major sports, referees should be employed full-time. Again, this is multi-million and billion dollar business. Professionals, with careers in mind, should be the responsible parties which control the flow and competition of games and contests, not part-timers. These professionals would simultaneously be held accountable for their actions, both positive and negative. The best referees shall be rewarded; and those continuously falling short of reasonable expectations will need to find other employment.

Section VIII: Revenue

As all sporting organizations will eventually benefit from the principles outlined in this proposal, let's eliminate a major obstacle—greed. Both revenue allocation and revenue sharing must be discussed.

Revenue allocation explains how funds generated by processes of a particular sport as a whole are distributed among that sport's individual participants; where the individual participants may, but not usually, receive identical portions. Once monies have been allocated, there may be a need for some participants to divide their proceeds among members of a particular alliance, such as a conference or league. Equal share of total revenue among the members of any alliance is not necessarily fair due to the fact that the worst program or department has little to no incentive to become the finest. Is it fair when the least prepared, whom most likely put in less effort, receive the same gain as the best? Thus, revenue sharing describes fair dispersion among members whose returns vary per organization per year. Let's look first at revenue allocation.

A. Revenue Allocation:

In the old college football system (and current BCS), it has basically been all or nothing concerning the allocation of monies, where smaller programs collect little or nothing. The bowls have shown to make rich schools richer. Schools in the (6) major conferences—ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac 10, and SEC—received approximately 94% of the total $144.6 Million paid out by 23 bowls after the 1999 season. Ten years earlier in 1989, the same teams from above also received an identical 94% of bowl revenues. Additionally, there is further disparity among the disparity. Take 1998 Kansas State for example. After a heartbreaking overtime loss in the extra game of the Big 12 Championship, KSU was dropped from a slot in the BCS title game and a $12 Million payout to an insignificant bowl and payout of less than $1 Million. Now, with the following allocation configuration, those teams in the postseason but not in the National Championship game will still receive a significant payout; and the teams not in the postseason altogether would receive a comparatively representative portion.

Regardless of the sport and level of competition, teams participating (as a whole) in the postseason should receive 63% of applicable revenues; and teams not partaking in a postseason would acquire the remaining 37%.For each sport's postseason tournament(s), monetary payouts will be determined by the last round of participation.

Let's continue to explain revenue allocation with the example relating to a National Championship Bowl Tournament in college football.

Allocation Table: Next 16 Top 12 1 2 3 4 Round 1 2 3 4 8 4 2 2 Teams/Round 4 4 2 1 + 1 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Shares/Team/Round 2.25 3 4 ƒ 8 6 4 5 Total Shares/Round 9 12 8 11 where: 1.0 share = 1.0% of revenues ƒ equals 5 for the runner-up and 6 for the winner

Total shares allocated to the 28 teams of both tournaments=63.0.

Regarding the percentage each tournament is allotted from this total of 63 shares, the Top 12 shall acquire 63%, and the Next 16 secures 37% (sum the total shares per round in the table above). Thus, Top 12: 0.63 times 63 shares=40 shares. Next 16: 0.37 times 63 shares=23 shares.

Of 114 Div. I teams, 86 will not make either tournament. 37 shares remain for 86 teams. Ranked teams #29-#56 shall receive 37% of the remaining 37 shares; and Ranked teams #57-#114 shall receive 63% of the remaining 37 shares. 37 times 37 shares=14 shares. 63 times 37 shares=23 shares Ranked Teams #29-#56: ^(14 shares)/_(28 teams)=0.5 shares per team. Ranked Teams #57-#114: ^(23 shares)/_(58 teams)=˜0.4 shares per team.

In summary of this particular and fair distribution for a college football postseason, the top 28 teams (top quarter, 28 divided by 114 equals 25%) receive anywhere from 1.0 to 6.0 shares each; teams of rank #29-56 (second quarter) each will receive a ½ share (0.5); and the bottom half of all ranked teams (#57-114) shall receive approximately 0.4 shares each.

The above revenue allocation principles are also discussed in the ‘Pay Per Performance’ section of this proposal, although illustrated via a professional sports league.

B. Revenue Sharing:

There are many concerns regarding how revenues are shared on both the collegiate level as well as in professional sports, among other circumstances and environments. In Major League baseball, for example, some teams spend $90 Million on player contracts and make a profit while other teams may spend $40 Million and actually lose money. In regard to college football, some individual teams are required to share their payouts with other members of an appropriate conference. This and other scenarios are relevant in the need to develop a fair and consistent method of sharing revenues.

For conceptual purposes, let's first begin with an example more closely relating to professional sports. This example shall introduce and clarify the steps and formulae involved; then, we will move to an example especially pertinent to college football.

Example: Professional Sports League Revenues Sharing Across Franchises. Revenues, which are rounded to the nearest $Million, are defined as monies available prior to any variable spending such as player contracts.

Listed is a sample of 12 teams and their varying pre-disbursement funds: Team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gross $ 90 40 35 75 80 60 63 88 55 65 108 63

DEFINITIONS

-   R_(n) equals REVENUE for a PARTICULAR TEAM -   N represents the NUMBER of TEAMS -   T is TOTAL REVENUE of ALL TEAMS -   B stands for the BASE REVENUE TOTAL of ALL TEAMS -   E is EXCESS REVENUE ABOVE BASE TOTAL of ALL TEAMS -   D equals the REMAINING REVENUE per EACH TEAM -   C represents the BASE per EACH individual TEAM -   V stands for EQUAL AVERAGE per TEAM of TOTAL REVENUES -   I equals TOTAL of INDIVIDUAL TEAM ADDITIONAL amounts -   F is the FINAL REVENUE EXCESS -   A_(n) represents INDIVIDUAL TEAM ADDITIONAL REVENUE -   Z_(n) equals INDIVIDUAL TEAM's FINAL REVENUE AMOUNT

Steps to determine fair distribution: (emphasis on major and minor influences) T=R ₁ +R ₂ +R ₃ + . . . +R _(n)   1. V=T/N   2. B=T(0.63)   3. C=B/N   4. A _(n)=(R _(n) −C) (0.37)   5. I=A ₁ +A ₂ +A ₃ + . . . +A _(n)   6. E=T−B   7. F=E−I   8. D=F/N   9. Z _(n) =C+D+A _(n)   Formula:

-   -   which equates to: Z_(n)=[[T−(0.63)(0.37)T]−I+N(0.37)R_(n)]/N

From the above, we arrive at the Final Distribution Table: Teams Pre-disburse $ Final $ % of Average 1 90 76 110 2 40 59 86 3 35 58 86 4 75 71 103 5 80 73 106 6 60 64 94 7 63 66 96 8 88 76 110 9 55 63 91 10 65 67 97 11 108 83 121 12 63 66 96

-   -   where: C=43     -   D =16, rounded     -   T=822     -   V=68.5, equal average between all teams

As you can see, individual organizations that perform are rewarded with above average funds and organizations that fall below standard receive below average funds. However, the differences between individual entities regarding final disbursement is proportional to the differences between levels of success or gain; as opposed to being skewed to opposite ends of the spectrum as before revenue sharing, or as opposed to how equal sharing appoints all exactly in the middle of the spectrum. In other words, fair dispersion between members!

Now, let's apply these principles to college football. The following illustration displays how schools of the Big 12 Conference would share the revenues acquired from individual programs after a postseason of the Top 12 and Next 16 has concluded.

Example: Total proceeds to-be allocated among all Div. IA teams equals $500 Million. All numbers represent increments in $Millions.

Final Distribution Table:

-   -   where:     -    C=4.71     -    D=1.29     -    T=89.75

 V=˜7.5 Last rd./ Teams Tournament Rank $ Allocated Final $ % of Avg. KU Top 12 Win 4^(th) 30 15.36 205 UT Top 12 1^(st) 11.25 8.42 112 OSU Next 16 1^(st) 5 6.1 81 CU Next 16 1^(st) 5 6.1 81 T. A&M none 29-56 2.5 6.0 80 T.Tech none 57-114 2.5 6.0 80 UNL Top 12 2^(nd) 2 9.81 131 MU Next 16 3^(nd) 2 7.96 106 BU none 29-56 2 6.0 80 KSU none 29-56 15 6.0 80 ISU none 57-114 10 6.0 80 OU none 57-114 2.5 6.0 80

Section IX: Pay Per Performance: League Funds Distribution

A. Introduction:

This is a system wherein funds are distributed within each organization of a league based upon not only the organization's accomplishments determined by the success of postseason play, but also the performance of individuals working within the organization. Contracted players, for example, are rated per their individual positions and then players per team are rated against one another in order to allocate 63% of total revenues to the players, leaving 37% for ownership.

Pay Per Performance (PPP) is inherently itself a cap, where owners and players each gain to the limit of their performances and accomplishments, with an emphasis on gain.

Most players without a substantial and lucrative contract will play their hearts out; however, many that do receive those bank-buster contracts soon become apathetic—this cannot and will not happen with PPP! Individuals will definitely strive to do their best every year—but even more important is the fact that PPP instills team pride, unity, and an intense determination to accomplish goals.

There may still be trades between teams for specified players, and athlete free agents as well. Regardless of the player movement, inevitably players are paid as a direct result of their performance. This will enhance league parity, while also allowing the best-run organizations to flourish. Although an overabundance of talent on a single team will drive down the possibilities of individual players to attain the top tiers of pay, this same talent will most likely bring in greater monies via allocation due to team performance. The point is, winning teams will cycle randomly; and yet, at the same time, some teams will seem destined for greatness above other teams. The organization, as a whole, which puts forth the greatest total effort (from coaches, administrators, players, etc.), will be the most successful. This is so important we will state it again, and the weak need be the only ones frightened—the greatest amount of total organizational effort will always result in at least a 90% win factor.

B. Revenue Distribution:

Professional sports today does not have a problem with a lack of revenue—the problems lie in distributing funds fairly!

After a completed season, each team will have made a specified percentage on the total revenues of the sport where some revenues are split and some are not. Among the major streams of revenue for professional sports (divided into 3 categories in the descriptions to follow), we will utilize (3) separate processes for distribution:

-   -   1. No Sharing: all funds acquired per organization are retained         100%.     -   2. Revenue Sharing: the principles and procedures for sharing         revenues are outlined in other sections located either in this         proposal,     -   3. Revenue Allocation: the processes for allocating monies may         also be found in the aforementioned sections, however, we         demonstrate these principles within the example to follow as the         basis of this section . . . ‘Pay per Performance’.

Revenues shall be distributed as follows: (1) Stadium revenue (concessions, merchandise, parking, etc.): No Sharing; (2) Ticket revenue (gate sales, luxury boxes, etc.): Revenue Sharing; and (3) Broadcasting rights (national and local TV and radio): Revenue Allocation.

The aim for this revenue distribution arrangement not only provides for incentive to perform, but also to give all teams periodic chances of winning when adequately-distributed revenues are utilized properly.

Salary Cap? No need to discuss this any longer; no need to worry about such bureaucratic red-tape any further. PPP does away with salary cap issues in a positive manner.

C. Free Agency:

The system of free agency in today's sports world has completely spun out of control. Professional players are now released at the whim of an accountant. Accomplished veterans are asked to take pay cuts while the inexperienced walk away with millions in signing bonuses.

How shall PPP affect free agency? Free agency will still be a factor. Players are allowed to move once they have reached the maximum level of minimum salaries.

To determine a players salary where there may be unforeseen circumstances such as injuries, we would utilize previous performance ratings. These prior individual performance ratings would be averaged with appropriate minimums, where performance ratings hold a greater weight (in the mathematical process of averaging) with a shorter amount of time missed due to injury. If a player were to continually miss season after season due to an assortment of injuries, that player would eventually lose any influence of an antiquated performance rating, and would simply receive an appropriate minimum salary.

There of course should be a minimum salary per year—and it should be significant simply due to the fact that a vast number of athletes will either be at or near the minimum salary. Minimums are set before the season starts; and maximums are calculated by an organization's total effort and performance to the highest level achieved, both on and off the field. Regarding player salaries, there definitely must be individual maximums, otherwise one or a few individuals theoretically could make a fortune while all the rest receive the minimum.

Minimums are for those players rated in the bottom 63% of the total of all players per each team. Minimums increase each year to a ceiling for minimum salaries in the 5^(th) year.

Players are allowed to move via free agency . . . in their 5^(th) year (after (4) complete seasons under contract). There are no ramifications (unrestricted free agent) if players move after 5 complete seasons; but if a player moves after only (4) complete seasons (restricted), then their original team is eligible to receive some form of compensation (such as other player(s) or dollars) from that player's new team.

As explained previously, the average salary for players in the bottom bracket of all rated players should be based on a percentage relative to the number of years of league service. $22M divided by 35 players=an avg. of approx. 63% of one million dollars=˜$630,000 per player.

A format to determine minimum salaries based in part on years of service roughly equates to: 1^(st) year: $500,000 2^(nd) year: $565,000 3^(rd) year: $630,000 4^(th) year: $695,000 5^(th) year and beyond: $760,000

Now, back to the top-rated players. Regardless of years of service, players rated in this upper echelon shall each receive salaries above the minimum. The top 20 players, as a whole, receiving 63% of $60M=$38M could be allocated as follows: 20. $ 850,000 19. $ 925,000 18. $ 1.0 M 17. $ 1.0 M 16. $ 1.1 M 15. $ 1.1 M 14. $ 1.25 M 13. $ 1.25 M 12. $ 1.45 M 11. $ 1.45 M 10. $ 1.7 M 9. $ 1.7 M 8. $ 2.0 M 7. $ 2.0 M 6. $ 2.5 M 5. $ 2.5 M 4. $ 3.0 M 3. $ 3.0 M 2. $ 3.725 M 1. $ 4.5 M

The maximum salary in this illustration of $4.5M/year is 9 times greater than the absolute minimum annual salary of $500,000.

Realistically, the difference in pay between minimum salaries and the top salaries on a team should be manipulated to provide an optimum amount of incentive to excel. More important than the actual numbers, however, is understanding the process which is outlined.

D. Example:

For an illustration of the procedures to follow revenue distribution, let's model our numbers to the National Football League. For simplicity, we will state that revenue to be allocated to all organizations is based entirely on national television contracts, and wherein B=Billions of dollars and M=Millions of dollars.

Currently, the NFL's national television contract is worth approximately $2.2B per year for the league as a whole. Thus, $2.2B divided by 32 teams=$68.75M each if an equal average per team. Using the minority influence formula, 37% of the league (12 teams=12T) make it to playoffs. The 12T to make it into the postseason shall receive approximately 50% of the revenues; and, the 20T that do not make it to the postseason receive approximately 50% of the revenues. In this example, $1.2B is allocated to the teams not in the postseason: Those 20T not in the playoffs each will receive an equal share=$60M.

Next, the total allocated dollars to the teams in the playoffs is determined per team by the last round of participation, such as: Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 # Teams: 4 4 2 loser: winner: 1 1 Revenues  70M  80M  95M 100M 110M Per Team: Total Revenues/Rd. 280M 320M 190M 210M Where total revenues for all rounds=$1000M=$1.0B:

Now, after accepted organizational expenses, both players and owners share in the revenues: 63% to players, 37% to ownership. A win-win situation!

As there may be a case to follow and reward all or most departments and individuals throughout an organization based upon performance, this illustration continues specifying the next very important process whereby players are paid salaries based on performance.

Lets say our team in question was somewhat successful, but lost in round 3. Out of a total of 95M the organization received, players as a whole will split: $95M×0.63=˜$60M. For simplicity, we will state that there are 55 players per team.

In order to determine annual salaries, players are rated per each team according to their overall effort, performance in comparison to their peers, and importance to their team. The top 37% of rated players, as a whole, shall be rewarded 63% of the total player revenue: 55 players times 0.37=20 players. In this example, $60M for this particular team×0.63=approx. $38M. Therefore, the top rated players on this team (20 of them) will take home a combined $38M.

The lowest 63% of rated players will receive 37% of the total player revenue to be allocated: 55 players×0.63=35 players in the lowest rated bracket. $60M times 0.37=$22M to be split among the 35 lowest rated players.

E. Agents will be Replaced by Personal Trainers:

Don't fool yourself, most of the best college athletes have their agents picked well before their eligibility has expired—if an agent did wait to call until a top student-athlete makes it known he/she is going professional, that agent would be laughed off the phone. The conversation would go something like this: “You missed the bus, man, I've already talked to 25 different agents—and I knew who my agent was going to be over a year ago”.

The NCAA now punishes only a small, very small, portion of the athletes and agents who are violating-relevant rules, and if the NCAA would pursue this issue/area, stringently, what a disaster would entail! Here's the beauty of PPP . . . agents are not necessary!

Actually, agents would remain. Eventually only the truly talented and dedicated ones would remain because they evolved. Although no longer needed in regards to negotiating annual salaries especially because they should not receive a percentage of minimum salaries, agents may still influence negotiations for annual bonuses, length and/or guarantee of contracts, or setting minimums per year for performance pay; as well as become more involved in marketing their clients, and acting as a general consultant for most business affairs.

The agents who will make an effort to perform will find this field still highly lucrative; however, those who made money simply on the performance of others will now soon fail. Therefore, idealistically, personal trainers should not replace agents—they both should work as part of a team!

A team, along with any necessary accountants and lawyers, or others—all working to make the athlete the best he/she can be. Now, trainers could relay progress reports not only to agents, but most likely also to that particular athlete's spouse. What's the point? Everywhere there is incentive to succeed. All perspectives connect effort and reward in a positive manner: organizations, athletes, and the sport as a whole. A win-win situation!

An agent may no longer be a necessity for players; however, if an agent armed with -that described above can actually make a difference and push the athlete to perform at the highest levels, then they deserve compensation.

If an athlete does decide to have an agent, then that agent should earn their keep. Lou Holtz described in his book ‘Winning Every Day’ that players should first approach NFL executives without an agent. Once there is an offer, a player could take this tender to his/her agent and the agent would then be paid for anything attained above and beyond what the player would have received by his/her own efforts. This is a wonderful idea and is a simple point of personal financial matters.

In effect, PPP accomplishes this . . . among many other positive economic functions.

F. Rating Player Performances:

Although there are numerous rating methods, the preferred ideology would be as follows First, players should be rated throughout the league per position as follows: X—Coaches poll; Y—Players poll; and Z—Independent agency poll (i.e. Acme Co.).

Coaches and players would not be allowed to vote for the players on their own team; and the X & Y polls would be weighted twice as much as the Z poll. Ties are broken by the sum of the (3) non-weighted polls.

Given the above information, players are now rated per each team—where players are ranked in order of importance and performance, etc.; by the following methods:

-   -   X: Coaches of that particular team     -   Y: Players of that particular team     -   Z: Independent agency (Beta co.—a separate agency from Acme         above)         G. Conclusion:

PPP dictates that a sports league will now allow each and every member (franchise) of that league to flourish financially while simultaneously providing each franchise a reasonable ability to compete. In fact, it's all about the competition. Sports in many ways is defined by preparation, so that you may win in a fair match . . . not annihilate overmatched opponents. Capable opponents throughout a league, fueled inevitably by the stores of revenue, lend credibility to a sport. Fair distribution of funds based on performance & sound economics allows for the best products to be displayed—the best competition—which is what everyone craves, especially the fans.

Section X: Champions are Determined on the Diamonds & Courts

A. Introduction

In the preferred arrangement for major college sports, approximately a 4-week postseason is represented per sport—for football, basketball and baseball alone, there are (3) months of postseason excitement each and every year.

B. Final Four College Basketball (1) Brackets:

Although the arrangement of seeding teams via the unbiased GP Formula and mathematical rationale of the Poll Configuration is obviously the best case scenario as to entry into the Final Four tournament, something is missing! The rewards to the teams with the best regular season records are minimized to a possible first week of local regional games—these supposed advantages for many of the best teams during the season are quite often no greater than any advantage of teams of substantially lower rank. A regular season of approximately 30 games should display some substantial rewards to those teams that have endured the trials of that season and closed the season at or very near the top of the standings. The preferred method would be to reward the top 8 seeded teams out of the total teams in the Final Four tournament a first round bye. Alternatively, only the top 4 seeds could receive this proposed first round bye. All other rounds of this tournament would essentially remain the same. Where 8 teams receive a first round bye (the no. 1 and no. 2 seeds of each of the four major brackets in the Final Four), which now leaves 56 total teams allowed into the tournament from the start as opposed to 64. This reduction in the total number of teams does not, however, have any negative effect on revenue potential because the number of first round sites would remain the same. With this configuration, the number of games in the first rounds for the first weekend of play would still be substantial at 40, as opposed to 48 if there are 64 teams in the field.

The total number of teams to participate in the preferred arrangement of the college basketball postseason, however, would actually increase by 25%! There are currently 64 teams in the NCAA tournament and 32 teams in the NIT tournament for a total of 96 teams. As described above, there should be 56 teams in the NCAA tournament, and . . . there should be 64 teams in the NIT tournament. There are currently a total of 321 basketball teams in Division I. The preferred arrangement of 56 teams in the NCAA tournament and 64 teams in the NIT tournament equals a total of 120 teams. 120 divided by 321 equals . . . you guessed it—37%! This relates to more games due to 24 more total postseason teams: 24/96=a 25% increase.

(2) Conference Tournaments:

Although the NCAA Final Four tournament is certainly one of the best annual sports venues, there remains many concerns. Are conference tournaments necessary and practical? The beginning of the season is currently meaningless. Does anyone understand the system by which teams enter the NCAA tournament, or is it true that a bunch of guys drinking and smoking throughout an all-night party actually play tossing games where they try their best to get favorite teams (represented by either paper airplanes or playing cards) to fall within a black hat in the middle of a large table?

Conference tournaments are beneficial because: (1) They give underdogs a chance to enter the tournament; (2) They bring in a substantial amount of money; and (3) Great exposure.

End-of-season conference tournaments are bad because: (1) Allow sub-.500 teams into the postseason; (2) Interrupt finals week in most schools which utilize a quarter system; and (3) An exercise in redundancy (with the upcoming Final Four and NIT).

Regarding conference tournaments, there should be uniformity within the approximately 31 conferences which make up most of the field of eligible teams. All conferences, being idealistically equal, should have conference tournaments. With NCAA automatic bids at stake for many conference tournament champions, it does not make sense for some conferences to be at a disadvantage without a tournament.

C. Sequence of Play

The preferred sequence of play is: (1) Out-of-conference games; B. Conference tournaments; and (3) Conference games.

In this proposed sequence of play, there should be 27 (base) regular season games. This is determined using the minority influence percentage, as follows: 27 times 0.37=10. The first ten games, being a minority influence, should be out-of-conference. After these first 10 games, it is now time to play conference tournaments. After the conference tournaments, now it is time to play only conference games. 27 times 0.63=17 games.

The total number of games played before any postseason equals 27 plus the number of games played in a conference tournament. Any teams not residing in a conference will simply play 28-31 games. Entry in a preseason tournament accounts for (1) non-conference game out of (10); although all games played are utilized to determine rank.

Every conference has (1) automatic bid, decided in one of two ways:

-   -   1. Conference Tournament winner, provided a regular season         conference winning percentage of at least 63% AND a regular         season total winning percentage of at least 50%.     -   2. Where #1 above does not apply, the best regular season         conference record, including practical tie-breaking methods.

Now, if you don't win your conference tournament in mid-season when it is most exciting, then you fight for the rest of the season to drive the conference tourney winner towards mediocrity. Thus, reopening the possibility for an automatic bid, while simultaneously playing your best to obtain the best overall ranking possible—remember, teams are now ranked fairly based solely on how they play and whom they play.

The beginning of the regular season will now be important especially relating to overall rating due to the relevance of schedule strength. It will be interesting because this is the only period out-of-conference games will take place until the postseason.

The late-beginning to middle of the season will now be very important with the play of the conference tournaments. This will help to provide a multi-climactic season.

The middle to end of the regular season will be both interesting and important as teams battle to earn a regular season conference title or a final ranking which entitles a postseason birth.

The above described system is advantageous for several reasons: First, it allows Cinderella teams of either fairy tale seasons or a hot run (justified by a winning percentage), a chance to compete against the best competition. Second, after an adequate number of games to begin the season, conference tournaments are a good appetizer not only for conference play, but also for the inevitable madness of March without being repetitious. Finally, the NCAA tournament should be a reward to worthy teams whom have had good-to-great regular seasons, not teams that can put together just one weekend of great play.

At the end of this sequence of play, all Division I teams are uniformly ranked—ranking procedures are outlined later. Teams 1-8 of the Top 56 receive 1^(st) round byes. Unranked automatic bids replace the lowest seeded teams of the Top 56. After the Top 56 seeding is complete, all remaining Division I teams are re-ranked and appropriate teams invited to the Next 64.

The Final Four college basketball championship tournament now encompasses (3) weeks, however, it may by advantageous to extend this experience by one additional week. This is accomplished by making the last two rounds of the tournament a best-of three-game series. Thus, the third weekend would have two sets of opponents playing two 2-out-of-3 series; and the fourth weekend would showcase the final two teams again playing a best 2-out-of-3 series. This truly enhances the overall appeal of the final rounds, and displays the actual final (4) teams in a spotlighted format . . . the pinnacle of the Final Four!

C. General Basketball

Now let's look at some new ideas that also would greatly improve the game of basketball, especially on the collegiate level.

If a defensive foul is committed within allotment, then the offensive team retains the ball with a new shot clock. If a defensive foul is committed where the number of fouls per that period has exceeded the allotment, then the offensive team (the player fouled) gets (1) free throw and the ball back (with a new shot clock)!

This single rules adjustment above, in bold text, will by itself propel the sport of basketball to unparalleled heights by substantially improving the very nature and fundamental flow of the sport. This new rules configuration will cut down the number of total fouls committed during a game, but especially will retard that most ugly of unsportsmanlike strategies practiced by virtually all teams at any level—where the losing team is compelled to commit foul after foul upon foul after foul at the end of the game. The real problem is that teams are, unfortunately, rewarded far too often for this principle with today's rules configuration. Anyone involved in the sport of basketball, especially the fans, will complain about this very problem in the majority of all games played. Now, with this new fouls configuration, teams that are losing at the end of a game must now play excellent defense to win, not foul to win! Also, this new configuration speeds up the game simply because there will be less fouls and less stoppage time, which enhances the flow of the game—which is the essence of basketball.

Offensive fouls always force a change of possession. If the team committing this foul is over the allotment of fouls per that period, then the team fouled (the player fouled) gets (1) free throw and the ball. When a shot is made, count the basket made for the appropriate points and the team fouled (individual) also receives (1) free throw. After this free throw, there is a change of possession if made; and rebound attempt for both teams (of course, with the team committing the foul receiving positioning advantages) if the free throw is missed.

D. College Baseball Enhancements

One, Two, Three Strikes . . . the Current System is Out!

Currently, the college baseball postseason is called the College World Series and starts with 64 teams; and then narrowed to 8 teams which partake in a double-elimination bracket to a single-elimination championship game format—that doesn't sound like a series to me.

Whomever came up with this scenario, quite frankly, did not understand the delicate and special probabilities of baseball, where even slight differences in winning percentages (and batting %, etc.) . . . make all the difference! This relates to a general necessity for a series of games to be played in order to fairly determine a national champion.

Also, the current system minimizes the importance of the regular season, where the best teams of that particular year most often do not participate in the elite 8 tournament to determine a national champion.

So, exactly what do we do with the old system? 86 it!

After the completion of the regular season for ˜285 teams in Division I, all participants are ranked fairly, where the lowest numbers (#1) are the best rank positions. The 6 highest ranked teams automatically qualify for the Top 16 Championship Tournament.

The 80 next highest ranked teams are paired according to rank [#7 overall plays #86 overall, and so forth]. From those 80 teams, (10) will win (3) games in a row—these (10 teams will earn the remaining spots in the Top 16 National Championship Tournament.

Conference champions gain automatic berths into the Next 80, and are placed according to regular season final rankings. All 16 teams in the National Championship Tournament are then seeded at random, with predetermined locations corresponding to particular seed match-ups.

The Top 16 Tourney then proceeds per match-up and per round, preferably where at least semi-final and final rounds consist of a best-of-three series. A total of 86 teams make it into a formal postseason—30%.

Where the postseason is spread preferably over ˜4 weeks and where only the last two rounds of the Top 16 tournament are best-of-three series, (70) games are played within the Next 80 and (18-21) games are played within the Top 16 tournament.

The system described does reward the teams whom have performed the best during the regular season, while simultaneously providing other credible schools an opportunity to prove they belong in a postseason tournament. After an exciting and meaningful regular season, there shall now be a college baseball postseason that will afford more games (and thus more revenue), greater fan anticipation and exhilaration, and configurations that most closely fit the needs of the sport.

E. General Sports Improvements

(1) Regular Season Ties

Ending games where teams are tied after the completion of regulation time should be the accepted practice during the regular season for all major sports such as football, basketball, baseball, hockey, and soccer.

This serves two purposes: first, it rewards, in ranking terms, both teams partaking in hard-fought battles where there was no loser; and secondly, this leaves all those very special games with overtimes/extra play . . . for the postseason—a postseason to remember.

If you were to ask a sports fan to indicate what their favorite individual game was in any sport, 9 times out of 10 the answer would be a game which went to one or more overtime(s)/extra period(s). This only further emphasizes that overtimes or extra play periods should be limited to postseasons only, thereby displaying the most memorable games at the most important junctures.

(2) Ranking Procedures

With many sports on the brink of or amidst globalization (such as World Cup Soccer or professional baseball), there is a definite need to utilize the best rating system—the poll configuration and GP formula ranking methods.

The foundations of all sports ranking systems to be described are based on the patented, fundamental principles outlined in the methodologies to determine a college football national champion set forth in U.S. Pat. No. 6,053,823

As a review, the preferred method is to combine two subjective polls with an objective one. For college football, we labeled the following polls as:

-   -   X: Coaches Poll     -   Y: Writers Poll     -   Z: GP Formula

The X and Y polls are each weighted twice as much as the Z poll. Primary consideration for determining the ranks of teams (preferably where the number of teams is greater than 32) is given by the addition of all polls, weights included. [(2)X+(2)Y+Z]

Utilized only as a tiebreaker, secondary consideration is given to the sum of the three non-weighted polls. [X+Y+Z].

We must also take a quick look back at the GP Formula: B = Base   = #  of  games  of  a  regular  season  played  by  a  majority   of participating  teams R = Principal  team’s  winning  % ${\text{where:}\quad\begin{matrix} {\text{a~~win} = \text{1~~unit}} \\ {\text{a~~tie} = \text{0.5~~unit}} \end{matrix}} = \frac{\left\lbrack {{\#\quad{wins}} + {({.5})\left( {\#\quad{ties}} \right)}} \right.}{\text{total~~games~~played}}$ OP = Principal  team’s  opponents’ winning  % OOP = Principal  team’s  opponents’  opponents’  winning  % S = #  of  games  not  played  by  principal  team  below  base  #   of  games S = (base  #  of  games)  minus  (total  games  played) GP = Gross points  accumulated,  by  which  teams  are  ranked [the  highest  points  occupy  the  #1  rank] GP = RB + OP(.63)B + OOP(.37)B − RS   = B[R + (.63)OP + (.37)OOP] − RS

(3) Specifications Per Sport:

This ranking configuration does not dispute the validity of most current ranking methods in today's sports. It simply expands upon any existing systems in a fair and easily understandable manner to truly display impartial, rational, and just results.

As an example of how these methods may be applied to virtually every sport, we will list some preferred specifications for selected sports.

Where a Writers poll is relevant for international sports, there will be a fixed number of domestic writers from a particular country allowed to vote, per each team participating within the sport in question from that country. A country with more teams in the field/sport will have more writers from that country able to vote in the poll. For example, as there are currently 195 countries (and only one team per country) to be ranked (and eventually narrowed) for World Cup Soccer, then each country with a participating team would be allowed a constant number (such as four per applicable country) to vote within the Writers poll.

Also, when ranking participating entities (such as teams or individuals) where coaches and/or players in a sport may vote within a poll, these coaches and/or players shall not vote for their own entity. You cannot vote for yourself or for your own team. The most important aspect in setting up a particular sport's poll configuration is determining which factors will represent the X and the Y polls. The factors in question which would need to be narrowed, as a whole, to two total factors could be a Writers poll, a current Industry rating poll, or a Coaches poll, among others.

(4) GP Formula Adjustments

To accommodate all sporting circumstances, the GP Formula must be further defined.

Home Field: Home field is defined as when a participating team hosts a game at a predetermined local playing arena; and games held at other facilities, regardless of geographical proximity, are not considered as home field.

The following steps need to be followed in order to adjust final ranking points regarding any unusually numerous home field advantages (# of games hosted) utilized by certain teams:

-   -   I. Per each participating team, determine the percentage of the         total games played in a regular season as being home games=H     -   II. If the above percentage is greater than 63%, without         rounding, then we will adjust the Base within the GP Formula of         this particular team.     -   III. H minus 0.50=A, the home field advantage above the accepted         average (½ away games).     -   IV. A is now multiplied by a minority of a minority influence.         [0.1369=0.37 times 0.37] A (0.1369)=M_(in)     -   V. We now reduce this particular team's Base by the percentage         obtained, M_(in). Where: B=Base B (1.0−M_(in))=New Base

EXAMPLE 1

In a college football season, the base number of games=11. If a particular team had hosted 7 games out of a total of 11 regular season games: 7 divided by 11=63%. No base adjustment needed here.

EXAMPLE 2

Again in college football, if a particular team had hosted 8 games out of a total of 12 regular season games: 8 divided by 12=0.6666. Base adjustment IS needed here. 0.6666−0.5=0.1666 0.1666(0.1369)=0.0228 11 (old base) times (1.0−0.0228=0.9772)=10.75 The new adjusted base for this particular team is 10.75.

EXAMPLE 3

In college basketball, with a base of 27 games, if a particular team had hosted 20 games out of a total of 27 regular season games: 20 divided by 27=0.7407 Base adjustment needed. 0.7407−0.5=0.2407 0.2407(0.1369)=0.0330 27 times (1.0−0.0330=0.967)=26.11 The new adjusted base for this particular team is 26.11.

There should be some statistical rewards for those teams (or players, in individual-based sports) whom play much more than the Base. The Base is a predetermined amount of contests approximated to a median of contests played by all participants in a sport.

Concerning this area to be fine-tuned, the following steps need to be followed in order to adjust final ranking points:

-   -   I. Per each participating team, determine the percentage of         contests played above the Base=P     -   II. If the above percentage is greater than 37%, without         rounding, then we will adjust the Base within the GP Formula of         this particular team.     -   III. P minus 0.37=E, which represents an individual         participant's extra effort.     -   IV. E is now multiplied by a majority influence. E (0.63)=M_(aj)     -   V. We now increase this particular team's Base by the percentage         obtained,         -   M_(aj). Where: B=Base, then         -   B (1.0+M_(aj))=New Base

EXAMPLE 4

In a college football season, the base number of games=11. Although the chance for the following is very remote regarding college football, we proceed exclusively to illustrate the described principles. If a particular team had played 15 games: Minus 11=4) divided by 11=37%. No base adjustment needed here.

EXAMPLE 5

Again in college football, if a particular team had played 16 games where the base number of games was 11: (16−11) divided by 11=0.4545. Base adjustment IS needed here. This is accomplished as follows: 0.4545−0.37=0.0845 0.0845(0.63)=0.0532 11(old base) times (1.0+0.0532=1.0532)=11.59 The new adjusted base for this particular team is 11.59.

EXAMPLE 6

If in tennis it is determined that the Base number of matches(or tournaments) equals 19; and a particular player had played in 27 matches (or tournaments) per a calendar period: (27−19) divided by 19=0.42 Base adjustment is needed. 0.42−0.37=0.05 0.05(0.63)=0.0315 19(old base) times (1.0+0.0315=1.0315)=19.60 The new adjusted base for this particular player is 19.60.

Upon analyzing the different components of the GP Formula, there is only one component which may be adjusted, the others being constant variables relative to regular season results. The only component to be adjusted is the Base. A total of two adjustments may be made to the Base (either modifying the base up or down)—and that is how many adjustments we have described above. An individual team's (or player's) Base increases when they play many more games than the their competition; and the Base goes down when an overwhelming home field advantage is utilized.

3-Cube Slots relates to the gaming industry, most notably as a new slot machine device, method and system which provides users of the slot machine with increased possibilities to purchase wagers on multiple paylines, preferably straight paylines, as well as unique and exciting display and marketing opportunities. Where symbols of a slot machine have typically been displayed in a 2-dimensional format, we now transcend traditional designs with 3-dimensional capabilities, thereby exponentially increasing both the appeal and revenue-generating capacity of today's slot machines.

Although the slot machine started with varying symbols being displayed in a 1×3 matrix—you had to get 3 winning symbols in a row—there are new configurations at present such as the 3×3 window or 3×5 window formats. Some of the newer window formats in casinos which emphasize multiple paylines are proving to be quite popular; however, many of the additional paylines available to patrons are not straight lines, but of a zigzag nature (and therefore confusing to the patron).

Although we will discuss the fact that this idea is not limited to a base number of three for a three dimensional view and configuration, it should be known that all paylines with this new innovation and its scope of products will preferably have straight paylines. We believe this aids in customer understanding and acceptance, which in turn is to increase return business.

The windows of the slot machine which display the varying symbols of the theme of that particular device is now to be of a 3-D nature. For the ‘3-Cube’, we have a total of 27 separate windows. Regardless from which perspective the customer views the display (North, South, East, or West), the symbol in a particular window/screen will be shown as identical. Typical designations of spatial references are shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, although the windows within the slot machine would preferably have some space between any and all of the windows for better demonstration purposes.

The 3×3×3 configuration of the ‘3-Cube’ has multiple “faces” or planes of parallel windows of 9 windows each. On each 3×3 face, there are 8 straight paylines (of 3 windows in a row) for a consumer to choose to bet—three horizontal paylines, three vertical paylines, and two diagonal paylines. A 3×3×3 cube has (15) separate parallel planes of 3×3 faces; and thus, the ‘3-Cube’ has [15 times 8=]120 separate straight paylines!

As a player of this new slot machine, one may wager on as many of the 120 paylines per round as chosen. There shall be an ease of betting such as buttons for the patron to press which bet all paylines on a particular face or for all paylines. Otherwise, customers may choose individual paylines to bet on any of the separate faces during each and every round.

First, the display of 3-dimensional properties and windows within this new slot machine may be accomplished via either animation mediums or actual mechanical and construction means, as well as other potential solutions to demonstrate these principles.

This innovation could accommodate any form of slot machine, especially either the stand-up versions or more compact models. Animation formats of this invention would work well with any known shape of slot machine on the floor today, while an actual 3-D representation of all (27) windows would preferably be housed within a see-through section of the individual slot machine.

Also, the demonstration and display configurations are not necessarily limited to only straight paylines or square shapes.

Furthermore, the principles and practices for this new invention may expand to other base numbers for a cube matrix. For example, there is the ‘4-Cube’ and the ‘5-Cube’.

For the ‘4-Cube’, there are a total of [16 times 4=]64 separate windows. Each separate face here will have (10) straight paylines of four windows in a row. As there are (18) different planes/faces of sixteen parallel windows, the ‘4-Cube’ has [18 times 10=]180 separate straight paylines!

For the ‘5-Cube’, there are a total of [25 times 5=]125 separate windows. Each separate face here will have (12) straight paylines of five windows in a row. As there are (21) different planes/faces of twenty five parallel windows, the ‘5-Cube’ has [21 times 12=]252 separate straight paylines!

Of course, this concept may be expanded to include other base numbers either larger or smaller, although the most likely configurations are listed above. As an additional note, these new configurations may stand on their own as individual units or banks of machines; however, the preferred design is to be able to link all of the same type of machines together within a jurisdiction, thereby allowing the potential of progressives, including multi-million dollar jackpots.

Lastly, any variation of groups of symbols which represent losing or winning combinations may be utilized with this invention. For example, you could define one group of symbols as including cherries, bars (one, two and three bars), and a set of colored 7's on the reels, with the addition of a doubling wild symbol and/or a progressive-related symbol.

Slot machines, as a whole, account for a majority of the total revenues generated via the gambling industry. In 1990, slots comprised 58 percent of both Nevada and Atlantic City total gaming revenues—by 1997, slots accounted for 63% of Nevada gaming revenues and a significant 77% of Atlantic City gaming revenues.

This increase in slots' influence is only projected to further increase, according to a gambling industry analysis released by Bear Stearns Co. in September of 1998. Also, today's casino players are more sophisticated, and thus demand more challenging game environments, such as games which are connected or related to other casino games. Bear Steams estimated U.S. gaming equipment replacement market demands at approximately 31,222 units in 1997; and that number to rise to 61,408 units by 2002.

Slot machines comprise a growing share of casino revenues, as well as valuable floor space and marketing appeal. The new environment of ‘3-Cube’ Slots comes at an opportune time for game makers and casino owners, especially due to the shorter replacement cycles for existing slots at present properties; and thanks to the openings and plans for more “theme-resorts”, and due to the fact that the overall gaming market is opening in new markets worldwide.

As we enter a new era of improved product and increased demand for slot machines, this innovation is poised to be a positive and progressive change and force in the landscape of gambling, as well as a part of the enormous financial returns to follow.

One of the keys to good health is a good diet. Fresh foods are one of the best sources of good nutrition, but maintaining that freshness once we get foods home can be a real challenge.

First, there was the refrigerator; then came the microwave; and finally . . . the VACUATOR!

We are proud to present the common household appliance to keep perishables indefinitely—without a constant electrical demand—and at a constant temperature, either hot or cold.

Although varying in size and perhaps reminiscent of a modern microwave, the Vacuator is unique in that it combines both the principle of removing air for preservation as well utilizing an air cavity to restrict loss of temperature.

It is a vacuum within an ENCLOSED vacuum.

Relative to the perishables that are placed within the Vacuator, there is not necessarily a stoppage of time, but certainly a significant slowing of the ravages of time. With the benefits of vacuum packaging while simultaneously limiting temperature changes to an absolute minimum, the Vacuator protects foodstuffs and other perishables like never before.

A primary reason for the spoilage of perishables is oxygen. The Vacuator's innovative design of a vacuum storage area within an enclosed vacuum removes the air (including O₂) that otherwise would negatively affect the perishable over time, while simultaneously storing the perishable in a relatively cool and dark setting.

As to controlling temperature, heat may be transferred in one of three ways: convection, conduction, or radiation. The goal is to appreciably reduce or otherwise eliminate these three heat transfer phenomena.

Convection is a property of liquids and gases—where heat is transferred via applicable liquids or gases. The process of convection is especially increased with the movement of liquids or gases. For example, blowing on hot soup to cool it down.

Conduction is atomic motion, or the collision of atoms which are next to one another. Heat is transferred in this manner typically by moving through a solid. A metallic spoon will get hot after being in a hot bowl of soup.

Radiation is an atomic vibration, which leads to the observable fact of infrared radiation, which is a form of light. When at a bonfire, you stand back many feet because of the heat which is radiating from the fire, in the form of infrared radiation.

The figures to follow illustrate one design perspective and an assortment of features.

Where foam (or other necessary solids) may be utilized to decrease heat conduction, the air trapped in the foam is an even worse heat conductor. And because the air is broken into what are basically tiny bubbles, foam also largely eliminates convection inside the foam. But the best insulator is a vacuum.

While a perfect vacuum is a lack of atoms and nearly impossible to create, it is certainly within the realm of possibility to come very close. An enclosed vacuum is essentially accomplished by linking (in the most minimal and yet strong manner) the inner core lid to the outer shell, where an empty gap is between them. Conduction is therefore reduced to an absolute minimum, whereby the only means of heat transfer by conduction are those threadlike non-conducting solid structures which attach inner core to outer shell.

Convection is inherently held in check by the fact that the perishables are located in a vacuum and surrounded by an enclosed vacuum.

Radiation is thwarted by allowing a digital picture to be taken of the substances to be preserved, whereby the inner core is then sealed in relative darkness. The exterior of the Vacuator will be equipped with a display which indicates the date and time the perishables were preserved and sealed, as well as the present date and time. Only one (digital) picture should be allowed within the Vacuator electronics so there will no confusion as to the contents of a sealed Vacuator.

Where a see-through area is preferred (as opposed to a picture taken before the preservation process begins), radiation-reducing glass and interior reflective glazings (such as silvering) may be used, or non-conducive and transparent silica aerogels.

Vacuators should be aesthetically appealing and stackable, such that different units may be placed next to one another, either vertically or horizontally.

The Vacuator will be able to operate on batteries alone so that there is ease in use even without electricity; and, a hand-held pump may be substituted for the motorized unit (which pumps air out of the inner core and enclosed vacuum) in case there is no DC power available.

An auto release valve will automatically de-pressurize the unit if internal gases or other complications cause undue stress or increased air pressure past accepted levels.

The most extravagant parts within this simplistic and yet effective design are hermetic (airtight) seals. They are in existence; therefore, nothing new (as in particular parts) needs to be developed.

Everyone eats, and every household and business will need AT LEAST one!

Foods are usually thrown away because they've either lost their freshness or spoiled. Within the average American family, more than 300 pounds of otherwise good foodstuffs alone per person per year are thrown away. Considering that food expenditures account for approximately one-fifth of all spendable income, that means a lot of money gets tossed into the trash.

1. Units can be manufactured and sold to serve several different functions:

-   -   a) Fruits     -   b) Meals (keeping them either hot or cold)     -   c) Vegetables     -   d) Breads—the Vacuator is the ultimate breadbox     -   e) Laboratory solutions, powders, or other perishables     -   f) Baked goods, such as cookies or crackers     -   g) Dry goods

2. The Vacurator can function via battery power, and will preserve the most important foodstuffs in the unfortunate event of an electrical blackout.

3. Not only will laboratories and other non-food applications be able to store materials for indefinite periods of time, but now may keep entire environments or experiments stable for extended periods.

As a note, although the Vacuator is designed to operate on a minimum of energy, especially when taken as a whole for the long term, replacement parts (such as valves, lids, displays, or pump assemblies) should be easily removable and interchangeable—thus ensuring return business as well as new business.

Produce is the original “fast food” and can be eaten on the spot with minimal preparation, the only trick is properly storing these precious gems of nature, as well as other perishables. In order to eat healthy, we need to stock our homes or businesses with only that which is . . . FRESH.

Consumers will now have at least the following advantages:

-   -   Saving $ on foods and perishable items of all kinds by avoiding         spoilage.     -   Shop less frequently, and avoid those emergency trips to the         store.     -   Optimal freshness of food items.     -   Saving $ on electricity and storage costs of perishables.     -   Convenience of keeping food items at constant temperatures for         extended periods.     -   Save $ with the confidence to buy perishables in bulk.

Whereas the invention has been shown and described in connection with the preferred embodiments thereof, many modifications, substitutions and additions may be made which are within the intended broad scope of the appended claims. 

1. A method for conducting a championship playoff series of sporting events among a league of 32 teams divided into four divisions of eight teams each, each team playing a plurality of games during a “regular season, comprising the steps of: ranking the teams from highest to lowest after the end of the regular season, whereby a higher ranking is better than a lower ranking; determining a total number of teams to participate in a postseason series; selecting the postseason teams beginning with the highest ranked team and proceeding down until the determined number of post-season teams has been selected; conducting a postseason championship tournament with the postseason teams, comprising the steps of: seeding the postseason teams before a first round of events; conducting a first round of events in order to eliminate first round losers from further participation; conducting additional rounds of events until a single champion is determined.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the total number of teams to participate in the postseason series includes the step of multiplying the total number of teams in the league by a value of 0.50 or lower and rounding the results to the nearest integer.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the total number of teams to participate in the postseason series includes the step of multiplying the total number of teams in the league by a value of approximately one divided by three and rounding the results to the nearest integer.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the total number of teams to participate in the postseason series includes the step of multiplying the total number of teams in the league by a minority value of 0.37, and rounding the results to the nearest integer.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein there are four total rounds in the postseason championship tournament.
 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of determining a single division champion in each division, according to the rankings at the end of the regular season.
 7. The method of claim 6, further comprising the step of conducting a first round of events for a postseason championship tournament, and wherein at least division champions receive a bye for first round events.
 8. The method of claim 1, where upon completion of said first round of events of a the postseason championship tournament, the teams which are able to participate in additional rounds of events of the postseason championship tournament are re-seeded prior to the step of conducting additional rounds of events.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the total number of regular season games played by each team is determined by a multiple of base
 8. 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the playing of a number of out-of-division games by an individual participant is determined by multiplying the total number of out-of-division teams by a minority value of 0.37, whereby results are rounded to the nearest integer.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the total number of regular season games played by each team is determined by a multiple of base
 11. 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the playing of a number of out-of-division games by an individual participant is determined by subtracting the number of in-division opponents from the total number of regular season games played.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the play of regular season games by individual participants follows a general sequence, comprising the steps of: out-of-division games are played first; in-division games are played next; and at least an out-of-division game with the traditional rival is played last.
 14. A method for conducting a championship playoff series of sporting events among a league of X number of teams, each team playing a plurality of games during a “regular” season, comprising the steps of: ranking the teams from highest to lowest after the end of the regular season, whereby a higher ranking is better than a lower ranking; determining a total number of teams to participate in a postseason series by multiplying the total number of teams in the league by a value of 0.50 or lower; selecting the postseason teams beginning with the highest ranked team and proceeding down until the determined number of post-season teams has been selected; conducting a postseason championship tournament with the postseason teams, comprising the steps of: seeding the postseason teams before a first round of events; conducting a first round of events in order to eliminate first round losers from further participation; conducting additional rounds of events until a single champion is determined.
 15. The method of claim 14, where upon completion of said first round of events of the postseason championship tournament, the teams which are able to participate in additional rounds of the postseason championship tournament are re-seeded before conducting said additional rounds of events. 